mt_create_backup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool creates backups and should be used before conversion, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's destructive (e.g., overwrites existing backups), rate limits, or what the backup process entails (e.g., creates files, stores in database). For a backup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences in Japanese, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the essential purpose and timing. However, for a backup tool that likely involves significant system interaction, it lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or output expectations, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (siteId, targetType, status). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the implications of targetType choices or status filtering. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'サイトのコンテンツをバックアップします' (backs up site content). It specifies the resource (site content) and action (backup), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mt_get_backup_items' or 'mt_restore' beyond the backup creation aspect.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: '変換前に必ず実行してください' (must be executed before conversion). This indicates when to use the tool (before conversion operations), though it doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions relative to other backup-related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.